BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

4,050 results for “disallowance”+ Section 10Bclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai953Delhi846Bangalore553Kolkata401Chennai317Ahmedabad202Pune146Hyderabad134Jaipur62Karnataka50Chandigarh45Cochin41Lucknow38Indore34Cuttack33Rajkot28Surat27Visakhapatnam25Nagpur15Amritsar14Jodhpur12Agra10Telangana9Dehradun8Guwahati8Varanasi7Panaji6Ranchi6Patna5Calcutta4Raipur4Jabalpur3Allahabad1Himachal Pradesh1SC1Kerala1

Key Topics

Section 1174Section 10A67Section 143(3)62Section 143(1)61Section 10B61Addition to Income53Disallowance47Deduction47Section 12A27Exemption

SHREE PUSHKAR FOUNDATION,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION)-WARD 2(30, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2714/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2021-22 Shree Pushkar Foundation, Ito (Exemption) – Ward 2(3), 301/302, 3Rd Floor, Cumbala Hill Tele Exchange Atlanta Centre, Vs. (Mtnl), Peddar Rd, Tardeo, Near Udyog Bhavan, Mumbai-400026. Sonawala Road, Goregaon East, Mumbai-400063. Pan No. Aawts 2303 N Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Sandip S. Nagar, &For Respondent: 24/07/2024
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)

section 139(1) is directory and not mandatory. directory and not mandatory. 2.3 That on the basis of facts and in the circumst 2.3 That on the basis of facts and in the circumstances of the ances of the case, the Ld. It. CIT(Appeal) erred in upholding the disallowance case, the Ld. It. CIT(Appeal) erred in upholding

Showing 1–20 of 4,050 · Page 1 of 203

...
25
Transfer Pricing25
Comparables/TP21

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX III, BANGALORE vs. M/S WIPRO LIMITED

C.A. No.-001449-001449 - 2022Supreme Court11 Jul 2022

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.R. SHAH

Section 10BSection 139(1)Section 72

Section 10B deduction could not be disallowed if the declaration was filed before the assessment was made. 4.10 Shri Ganesh

THE DCIT,(OSD)-1, CIRCLE-4,, AHMEDABAD vs. MIDVALLEY HEALTHCARE SERVICES PVT.LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the CO of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 204/AHD/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 Mar 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Respondent: Shri Virendra Ojha, CIT. D.R
Section 10BSection 80ISection 92C

disallowance under the provisions of section 14A read with rule 8D of Income Tax Rule. 16.3 However, the learned CIT(A) after considering the submission of the assessee and assessment order confirmed the addition made under section 14A viz- a-viz directed to the AO to enhance exemption under section 10B

MAHENDRA KUMAR DAMANI,VIRUTHUNAGAR vs. ADIT(CPC), BENGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for the AY 2016-17 is

ITA 805/CHNY/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Feb 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.805 & 806/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2019-20 Mr.Mahendra Kumar Damani, V. The Asst. Director Of- 7/5, Velayutham Rastha, Sivakasi, Income Tax, Virudhunagar District-626 123. Cpc, Bangalore.

For Respondent: Mr.AR.V.Sreenivasan
Section 10ASection 10A(5)Section 10BSection 10B(8)Section 143(1)

disallowed in the Intimation u/s 143(1) on account of failure of the assessee to furnish the audit report in Form 56F along with the return of income. Sub-section (8) of section 10AA provides that the provisions of sub-section (5) of section 10A shall apply to in relation to the deduction specified in section 10AA(1). The said

MAHENDRA KUMAR DAMANI,VIRUTHUNAGAR vs. ADIT(CPC), BENGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for the AY 2016-17 is

ITA 806/CHNY/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Feb 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.805 & 806/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2019-20 Mr.Mahendra Kumar Damani, V. The Asst. Director Of- 7/5, Velayutham Rastha, Sivakasi, Income Tax, Virudhunagar District-626 123. Cpc, Bangalore.

For Respondent: Mr.AR.V.Sreenivasan
Section 10ASection 10A(5)Section 10BSection 10B(8)Section 143(1)

disallowed in the Intimation u/s 143(1) on account of failure of the assessee to furnish the audit report in Form 56F along with the return of income. Sub-section (8) of section 10AA provides that the provisions of sub-section (5) of section 10A shall apply to in relation to the deduction specified in section 10AA(1). The said

ACIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI vs. CAPGEMINI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INDIA LIMITED (FORMERLY FUTURE SOFT PRIVATE LIMITED), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 420/CHNY/2024[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jan 2026AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.420/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2006-07 V. The Acit, Capgemini Technology Corporate Circle-1(1), Services India Ltd., Block 3, ‘C’ Wing, 4Th Floor, Chennai. Capgemini Knowledge Park, Airoli Knowledge Park, Thane Belapur Road, Navi Mumbai- 400 708. [Pan: Aaacf 0482 E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.S.P. ChidambaramFor Respondent: Ms.E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT
Section 10ASection 10A(2)Section 10A(5)Section 143(1)

disallowed in the Intimation u/s 143(1) on account of failure of the assessee to furnish the audit report in Form 56F along with the return of income. Sub-section (8) of section 10AA provides that the provisions of sub-section (5) of section 10A shall apply to in relation to the deduction specified in section 10AA(1). The said

MRS. SASHI SADH,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6203/DEL/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2010-11 Mrs. Sashi Sadh, 52/12, C.R. Park, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-23(2), New Delhi New Delhi Gir/Pan : Amlps4154L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 10Section 10BSection 143(1)Section 143(2)

section 10B (1) r.w.s. 10B(4) of the Act. 20. On the basis of foregoing discussion, we reach to logical fortified conclusion that the AO misinterpreted the ratio of decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Liberty India(Supra) while denying claim of the assessee u/s 10B

VINATI OPRGANICS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 8(3), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed for the statistical purpose and that of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 7177/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajendra & Shri Amit Shukla

Section 1Section 10BSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 1OSection 40

disallowance of deduction under section 10B on various receipts; and disallowance under section 40(a)(i) on various payments made

MOTHERSON SUMI SYSTEMS LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2054/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Mar 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri K.M. Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. DR
Section 108(4)Section 10BSection 10B(1)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 234BSection 271(1)(e)Section 92D

disallowance of exemption under section 10B of the Act with respect to miscellaneous incomes/other incomes/scrap sales and relying on the decision

DCIT, CIR-10(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S YAMAI FASHION PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

Appeals are dismissed as involving lower than the prescribed tax effect of ₹20 lac therefore

ITA 61/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Nov 2018AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh

Section 10Section 108Section 10BSection 10B(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 801BSection 80HSection 80l

Section 10B; interest subsidy qualified for claiming pro-rata deduction. However, since the export turnover and total turnover of the assessee's EOU was one and the same; the interest subsidy was eligible for 100% deduction u/s 10B of the I. T. Act The AO is accordingly directed to allow the deduction permissible u/s 10B with regard to interest subsidy

DCIT, CIRCLE - 10(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. YAMAI FASHION PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

Appeals are dismissed as involving lower than the prescribed tax effect of ₹20 lac therefore

ITA 1830/KOL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Nov 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh

Section 10Section 108Section 10BSection 10B(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 801BSection 80HSection 80l

Section 10B; interest subsidy qualified for claiming pro-rata deduction. However, since the export turnover and total turnover of the assessee's EOU was one and the same; the interest subsidy was eligible for 100% deduction u/s 10B of the I. T. Act The AO is accordingly directed to allow the deduction permissible u/s 10B with regard to interest subsidy

DCIT, CIRCLE - 10(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. YAMAI FASHION PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

Appeals are dismissed as involving lower than the prescribed tax effect of ₹20 lac therefore

ITA 1831/KOL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Nov 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh

Section 10Section 108Section 10BSection 10B(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 801BSection 80HSection 80l

Section 10B; interest subsidy qualified for claiming pro-rata deduction. However, since the export turnover and total turnover of the assessee's EOU was one and the same; the interest subsidy was eligible for 100% deduction u/s 10B of the I. T. Act The AO is accordingly directed to allow the deduction permissible u/s 10B with regard to interest subsidy

DINESH KUMAR SINGHI,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12 is partly allowed

ITA 699/BANG/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Apr 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep, C.AFor Respondent: Shri K.V. Arvind, Standing Counsel for Dept
Section 10BSection 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 153ASection 154

disallowance of Rs.86,63,23,825 claimed as deduction under Section 10B of the Act. The assessee's appeal was dismissed

DCIT 10(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. PHOENIX MECANO (I) PLTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed

ITA 4620/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Assessment Year:2011-12

Section 10ASection 10BSection 70Section 80A(1)Section 80B(5)Section 80C

disallowance, entertainment of expenses, donation interest accrued but not due depreciation etc. He has arrived at a figure of Rs. 11,17,87,315. He has claimed the entire amount as an exemption under section 10B

DCIT., CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD vs. DBS TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed

ITA 151/HYD/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Jul 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2019-20 Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Dbs Technology Income Tax, Services India Private Circle – 8(1), Limited, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aafcd5584N (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O.No.2/Hyd/2023 Assessment Year 2019-20 Dbs Technology Services India Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Private Limited, Income Tax, Circle – 8(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aafcd5584N (Cross Objector / (Appellant/Revenue) Respondent) Assessee By: Sri M. P. Lohia, C.A. Revenue By: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 11.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.07.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Laliet Kumar, Jm: The Appeal & Cross-Objection Filed By The Revenue For A.Y. 2019-20 Arise From The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi

For Appellant: Sri M. P. Lohia, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya, CIT-DR
Section 10ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)

10B or section 10BA86[or section 54 or section 54B or section 54D or section 54EC or section 54F or section 54G or section 54GA or section 54GB] or Chapter VI-A exceeded the maximum amount which is not chargeable to income-tax, shall, on or before the due date, furnish a return of his income or the income

HINDUSTAN UNILEVER LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO CIR 1(1)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee and the revenue are partly allowed

ITA 5431/MUM/2011[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Aug 2023AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 10BSection 80HSection 80I

section 10B. The Assessing Officer disallowed the said amount for the purpose of claiming exemption under section 10B. The CIT(A) upheld

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. HINDUSTAN UNILEVER LIMITED, MUMBAI

ITA 929/MUM/2018[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026AY 2004-05
For Appellant: Shri Nishant ThakkarFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra, CIT-DR
Section 10BSection 145ASection 14ASection 250Section 80Section 801BSection 80H

section 10B. The Assessing\nOfficer disallowed the said amount for the purpose of claiming exemption\nunder section 10B. The CIT(A) upheld

HINDUSTAN UNILEVER LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DY.CIT-1(1)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 1041/MUM/2018[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026AY 2004-05
For Appellant: Shri Nishant ThakkarFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra, CIT-DR
Section 10BSection 145ASection 14ASection 250Section 80Section 801BSection 80H

section 10B. The Assessing\nOfficer disallowed the said amount for the purpose of claiming exemption\nunder section 10B. The CIT(A) upheld

BHARAT MINE AND MINERALS,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of Revenue for Assessment Years 2008-09

ITA 738/BANG/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Apr 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep, C.AFor Respondent: Shri K.V.Arvind, Standing Counsel for Dept
Section 10BSection 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 37(1)Section 69

Disallowance of claim under Section 10B : Assessment Years 2008-09 to 2011-12. (ii) Unexplained investment u/s. 69 : A.Y. 2008-09. (iii) Unexplained

M/S. KIRI DYES AND CHEMICALS LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

ITA 1849/AHD/2016[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Jul 2021AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri T.P. Hemani, Sr. Advocate with Shri Parimal Sinh Parmar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Mohd Usman, C.I.T.D.R with Shri Raj Deep Singh, Sr.D.R
Section 10BSection 143(3)Section 234ASection 80I

disallowed then, the eligible profit becomes negative by Rs. 3,45,95,214/-. Therefore the assessee is not eligible for deduction under section 10B